NEWS
Council turns out lights on proposal
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Courtney Johnson:
- Construction pops up on State Street this spring (November 6, 2007)
- Woods ahead in fundraising race (March 28, 2007)
- E-mail sparks privacy concern (October 9, 2007)
- Big Ten Network reaches deal with UW housing (August 31, 2007)
- City agency to run Halloween entertainment (May 10, 2007)
Related Stories:
- King shines light bulb idea on city (March 7, 2007)
- Freshman alders prepare to serve (April 10, 2007)
- Let there be 'green' light (April 3, 2008)
- City keg registration hits roadblock (September 14, 2005)
- Keg registration support wanes (December 7, 2005)
Share This:
by Courtney Johnson
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
After an hour and a half of debate, a proposal to require all Madison city buildings and rental properties to use compact fluorescent light bulbs failed at Tuesday night's City Council meeting.
Outgoing City Council President Austin King, District 8, proposed the ordinance and defended it at last night's meeting, saying it would help reduce energy consumption, which contributes to global warming.
King acknowledged the ordinance would likely not have a huge effect on the polar ice caps or sea levels but said it would be a start.
"We have, I think, a global crisis in terms of our changing environment," King said. "We do have an opportunity here to send the right message and also to take a real concrete step that shows that our stated commitment to reversing global warming pollution in Madison has some serious value to it."
King added fluorescent bulbs last longer, meaning lights in areas such as stairwells would not need to be changed as often — making these areas safer for those who use them.
Ald. Zach Brandon, District 7, adamantly spoke out against the proposal at Tuesday's meeting.
He said Madison does not currently have the ability to recycle compact fluorescent bulbs and added most of the bulbs he found at Madison stores were made in other countries, which he believes could hurt American jobs.
Brandon also expressed concern about mercury pollution, as current compact fluorescent bulbs contain a toxic element that can cause pollution if not disposed of properly.
"The only person who loses out when you start mandating technology is, frankly, the environment and American workers," Brandon said.
Ald. Judy Compton, District 16, said she would like to support a proposal like King's but felt details of the plan need to be studied further. In particular, Compton said she was worried the bulbs would not be disposed of properly and would result in poisonings.
"We have to know, if we're mandating a certain product, how are we going to dispose of it?" Compton said. "We are voting in the blind for a vaporous idea."
Another part of the failed proposal called for LED lights to be used in exit signs that, according to King, last longer and are therefore less likely to burn out and create an unsafe environment.
"Our fire inspecting unit writes about 500 tickets a year for burned-out exit signs, and there's a reason that they write those tickets, and it's that burned-out exit signs are a threat to safety," King said. "When people can't find their way to a door to escape a fire in thick smoke or when the lights are out, those are real people's lives that are in danger."
Since this proposal failed, King said it would likely be introduced at an upcoming City Council meeting, but not by him — Tuesday night's meeting was the last of this particular council, and King is not seeking re-election this year.
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 12:32pm):
Zach Brandon is one weird guy. I keep hearing that he has political ambition, and then he does something like this that is so stupid. In five, ten years, this vote will come back to haunt him.
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 1:58pm):
Austin, shut up.
MOVE OUT OF MADISON ALREADY!
You are a loser.
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 4:17pm):
King said was attributed to saying "it would help reduce energy consumption, which contributes to global warming."
Let's pick a few nits here. Unless he's talking about nuclear physics, energy is not consumed. It just changes forms when it is used. Secondly, does using energy (i.e., CO2 emissions) significantly contribute to global warming? Or, is it the other way around? Does planetary warming cause a rise in CO2 levels? Look at all the CO2 sequestered in the oceans, which gets released when the temperature rises. There are lots of legitimate reasons for why wasteful use of energy should be curbed, but global warming is not one of them.
And yes, CFL's are have better energy efficiency, but they have trace amounts of mercury. If they aren't recycled, and just get dumped in landfills or wherever, we could have major problems with our municipal groundwater supply.
Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 6:13pm):
I like Judy Compton's idea. Let's spend $400,000 deciding it's a good idea (when everyone knows it is anyway) and then do it.
Anonymous (March 29, 2007 @ 9:28am):
While in the most pure, scientific way of looking at it, you're right; energy just changes form and isn't consumed.
However, utility companies cut through the jargon and talk about supply and demand. Now, when you talk about a supply and demand it's about a commodity, which is consumed or used. And electricity is used, but it's changed from one form to another and so it's fine to call it consumption.
Anyway...
This Brandon fellow sounds like he doesn't konw what he's talking about.
You can buy CFL's that are made in America:
http://www.lightsofamerica.com/about.htm
And CFL's, while they contain trace amounts of mercury (as most fluorscent bulbs do), because the CFL's use 60-80% less electricity than incandescent bulbs, they actually emit less mercury into the environment. Here's how that works...
By using energy (especially from coal fired power plants), mercury is emitted from the process. If less electricity is consumed, less mercury is emitted from coal burning. Since so much less energy is consumed via CFL's, even adding in the mercury in the bulb itself, they emit less mercury into the environment than an incandescent bulb.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Winter commenting hiatus
Comments have been turned off for the remainder of winter break. Look for our spring 2009 registration issue to come online at the start of the semester!
